Unfortunately, one man's tyranny is another man's freedom. Slave owners considered the end of slavery as taking away their freedom. Segregationists considered integration as taking away freedom.

It WAS taking away their freedom. It removed their freedom to own slaves. Which in the past had been perfectly legal. (of course I'm ignoring the argument of the morality of owning another human being for the sake of discussion and as a side note.. the common southerner did not own slaves... Mostly the wealthy... and the majority of the slave trade was in the Northeast). In reality the emancipation proclamation was only invoked to weaken the the Southern war effort. To subjugate the South if you will.

The popular politacally correct teaching in schools today about the Civil War and integration are very biased and barely resemble the actual history.

I grew up in the South during the integration era. It was way more complicated than you stated. Southern segregation was more an act of civil disobedience. Most of the trouble during that era was instigated by people not from the South. My first year in Jr. High, I was forced to be removed from all my lifelong friends to attend a school that was predominantly black... just because I lived on the wrong side of an imaginary line. Yes, my freedom to attend the school of my choice was taken away. Any time a law is passed it takes something away from somebody.

Last edited by daddybo; February 4th, 2010 at 11:32 AM.
Reason: added info

There Is No Second Place Winner ...even if your not brusque and merely informative.

I grew up in the South during the segregation period. Blacks were not allowed in my school. Nor in the only town swimming pool. Or in town after dark. When integration came, one county closed the public schools and filled the pool with cement instead of integrating. Whites went to private schools. Blacks either had to leave their parents and live with far away relatives or simply went without education. All because of an imaginary "race" classification that anthropologists say doesn't exist. May as well have been eye color.

My motto: "I hate to support casinos. But, I hate worse to libel anyone at anytime."

I grew up in the South during the segregation period. Blacks were not allowed in my school. Nor in the only town swimming pool. Or in town after dark. When integration came, one county closed the public schools and filled the pool with cement instead of integrating. Whites went to private schools. Blacks either had to leave their parents and live with far away relatives or simply went without education. All because of an imaginary "race" classification that anthropologists say doesn't exist. May as well have been eye color.

Ii can believe that.. as a matter of a fact I think I know where you are talking about. And I remember some of the very same things... Although where I lived the reaction was similar but not as radical. If you ask me, the whole thing was handled poorly on all sides.

Ii will add.. Most of the people I have talked to, both Black and White, about the school integration agree that it was not a good thing.

Last edited by daddybo; February 4th, 2010 at 11:40 AM.

There Is No Second Place Winner ...even if your not brusque and merely informative.

Hitler and the Nazi's were far right, not left. Their biggest enemy was the Communist Party. The Nazi's gave enormous power to corporations and had almost no regulation -- these are right-wing policies. In fact they were given free labor, no OSHA, no work rules, no unions, no child-labor laws -- the opposite of left-wing policies. German corps made massive profits under Hitler. Yes fascism means the merging of state and corporate interests. This is right-wing. In the extreme left theory, the government owns the means of production. But, there are no corporations in the normal sense. The operation of corporations is turned over to worker-councils. No stock, no massive profits, just big bureaucracies run "democratically" by the workers, but inefficiently and without innovation. Hitler and Mussolini certainly did not believe in this.

In the 1940's, Stalin was no Communist. He was an authoritarian monster and would have embraced any economic system that kept him in total control. The Soviet Union was not very close to Marxist theory.

In post-Revolutionary Russia the Leninists and Trotskyites were mortal enemies too, that did not mean one was Left and the other was Right. The National Socialists and Communists were fighting over control of Germany much like they did over Poland. Neither was a friend of Poland.

National Socialism (which was what Hitler was, not Fascist. Mussolinite fascism was significantly different.) was left wing by any political metric in use at that time. Things like "no OSHA, no child labor laws, no unions" are the case in any Communist country today. Try forming a labor union in North Korea. These things are only (disingenuously) associated with the Right in countries which already have multiparty democracy, and cannot be compared to any National Socialist or Communist country.

But if I were to disingenuously try to tar the modern Left with Hitler, I could accurately say he supported: gun control, abortion, vegetarianism, nationalization of industry and banking, nationalization of the arts, radical secularization, zero-carbon emission vehicles and a single-payer health care system.

Mistaken on several points

Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey

In post-Revolutionary Russia the Leninists and Trotskyites were mortal enemies too, that did not mean one was Left and the other was Right. The National Socialists and Communists were fighting over control of Germany much like they did over Poland. Neither was a friend of Poland.

National Socialism (which was what Hitler was, not Fascist. Mussolinite fascism was significantly different.) was left wing by any political metric in use at that time. Things like "no OSHA, no child labor laws, no unions" are the case in any Communist country today. Try forming a labor union in North Korea. These things are only (disingenuously) associated with the Right in countries which already have multiparty democracy, and cannot be compared to any National Socialist or Communist country.

But if I were to disingenuously try to tar the modern Left with Hitler, I could accurately say he supported: gun control, abortion, vegetarianism, nationalization of industry and banking, nationalization of the arts, radical secularization, zero-carbon emission vehicles and a single-payer health care system.

QFIT provided an informed clarification about fascism. Ron Paul says we're veering toward corporatism or "soft fascism" in this country now---government suppresses individual liberaties and actively supports industry. You can have various degrees of individual rights within any economic system. But private ownership of large concentrations of capital, or property, generally defines capitalism as an economic system whereas state ownership of capital defines communism. Socialism is a little funny because it was long considered as a peaceful transition from capitalism to communism with increasingly more ownership of private industry by the state. But all we've seen is either failed attempts to make a transition or else periodic rescues of troubled industries by pro-capitalist governments which return them to private ownership once they're stable. Some industries have been retained as state-run enterprises when it's clear they're not suitable as for-profit endeavors----commuter transportation for example.

Perhaps you are confused by the term "socialist" in National Socialist Party. In the aftermath of WWII the terms "workers," "socialist," and "revolutionary" were use widely as attention was directed toward gaining support of the working class. The original founders of the German Workers Party, which later became the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) under Hitler, were primarily nationalists and anti-semitists with some vague notions of economic socialism. Hitler's interest in socialism only extended to making the State responsible for administering welfare rather than the Chruch. The Communist Party (communists) and Social Democratic Party (socialists) failed to form an alliance in time to prevent the Nazis from gaining momentum with the unemployed and underclass, leading to their eventual defeat. Hitler did not favor or advance broad nationalization of basic industry.
BTW, you also may have confused Lenin and Stalin as Trotsky and Lenin were not "mortal enemies" in post revolution Russia. In 1920 they had a sharp difference on state control of trade unions and the Central Committee was evenly divided for a period until a vote at the Tenth Congress in 1921 settled the issue in Lenin's favor. As Lenin's health deteriorated from 1922 on, he tried to head off a split within the party leadership and proposed a number of tactics to balance power between Trotsky and Stalin. As we know, Stalin prevailed and eventually exiled Trotsky and ordered his assassination. Now That is a mortal enemy. But to your general point, both Trotsky and Stalin supported state ownership and control of industry, politically a LEFT WING policy although one (Trotsky) was more radical and the other more conservative in their approaches.
Unfortunately, the political debate in this country is so low level, due to the probably deliberate attempt of politicians and the corporations to dumb it down, that we can hardly have an intelligent debate on any issue. Healthcare reform is a fine example.

Debate

That was well put Diver and I agree that America is now being dumbed down. Trying to get the truth about subjects so it can be debated correctly is very difficult nowadays. Everyone puts the spin on the facts to suit their own agenda and interests. Making informed opinions about alot of things that effect us is difficult to say the least.

Holy Diver

Originally Posted by Diver

QFIT provided an informed clarification about fascism. Ron Paul says we're veering toward corporatism or "soft fascism" in this country now---government suppresses individual liberaties and actively supports industry. You can have various degrees of individual rights within any economic system. But private ownership of large concentrations of capital, or property, generally defines capitalism as an economic system whereas state ownership of capital defines communism. Socialism is a little funny because it was long considered as a peaceful transition from capitalism to communism with increasingly more ownership of private industry by the state. But all we've seen is either failed attempts to make a transition or else periodic rescues of troubled industries by pro-capitalist governments which return them to private ownership once they're stable. Some industries have been retained as state-run enterprises when it's clear they're not suitable as for-profit endeavors----commuter transportation for example.

Perhaps you are confused by the term "socialist" in National Socialist Party. In the aftermath of WWII the terms "workers," "socialist," and "revolutionary" were use widely as attention was directed toward gaining support of the working class. The original founders of the German Workers Party, which later became the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) under Hitler, were primarily nationalists and anti-semitists with some vague notions of economic socialism. Hitler's interest in socialism only extended to making the State responsible for administering welfare rather than the Chruch. The Communist Party (communists) and Social Democratic Party (socialists) failed to form an alliance in time to prevent the Nazis from gaining momentum with the unemployed and underclass, leading to their eventual defeat. Hitler did not favor or advance broad nationalization of basic industry.
BTW, you also may have confused Lenin and Stalin as Trotsky and Lenin were not "mortal enemies" in post revolution Russia. In 1920 they had a sharp difference on state control of trade unions and the Central Committee was evenly divided for a period until a vote at the Tenth Congress in 1921 settled the issue in Lenin's favor. As Lenin's health deteriorated from 1922 on, he tried to head off a split within the party leadership and proposed a number of tactics to balance power between Trotsky and Stalin. As we know, Stalin prevailed and eventually exiled Trotsky and ordered his assassination. Now That is a mortal enemy. But to your general point, both Trotsky and Stalin supported state ownership and control of industry, politically a LEFT WING policy although one (Trotsky) was more radical and the other more conservative in their approaches.
Unfortunately, the political debate in this country is so low level, due to the probably deliberate attempt of politicians and the corporations to dumb it down, that we can hardly have an intelligent debate on any issue. Healthcare reform is a fine example.

Corporatism is a buzz word recently and most people who use it have no idea what it means, due to its similarity to the word corporation. It has absolutely nothing to do with what Americans know as corporations! It is a government practice of organizing all elements of society into corporate-like entities that are, and here's the key, accountable only to the central planners of the state. The best example of a corporatist system I can think of is Red China, where all business is conducted at the pleasure of the state and even religions are state-sponsored entities. Nothing is controlled by private citizens responding to human desires or market forces in Red China.

The handy thing about corporatism is that it is compatible with any kind of totalitarian system and any kind of rhetoric. When Mussolini used it, it was to rebuild the glory of Rome. When Hitler used it, it was for the magnification of the Aryan race. The Red Chinese use it for the perpetual Cultural Revolution, and so forth. Dare I say it?- Obama wants to use it for "hope & change," turning private sector outfits that are "too big to fail" into state-run corporations, with the muscle of government behind them.

Hitler & National Socialism: that National Socialism was a form of socialism is a fact not even open to debate. It was socialism. It's defining feature was public ownership of the means of production, and it's no coincidence that the world's greatest capitalists were sent to the death camps. What was so kinky about it was that "public" took on an ethnocentric definition, unlike in Italy where your citizenship and loyalty was what mattered it was your racial characteristics that defined you as a member of the Aryan nation. Like any other form of socialism, it was half-assed and could not deliver what it promised.

Just a side thought: can you even imagine Italians getting into the combination of narcissism and hatred the Nazis did? "Look at my hairy arms, that means I am of a master race!" Doesn't really work, does it? I believe Mussolini was a well-intentioned man, just not too well grounded in reality.

Reds: you're right, maybe a better analogy would be Kerensky vs. Lenin. They were both socialists, but not at all friends. One of the reasons Hitler despised the Communist Party was that it was too heavily influenced by non-Germans, particularly a Jew named Marx.

Alrighty now

Well i sure got screwed in my edumacation.... LOL Rowan and Martins Laughin.... Veeeerrrry Interesting.... LOL
Wow a history class on a BJ site i love it ... Thanks guys Now where were we???
Oh yeah , Me thinks i need to take some night classes..

Serioiusly , good reading all.. But what was the question

Machinist

So look buddy it's nothing personal, but either your the unluckiest person in the world or your stealing from me. Either way............ I WANT NO PART OF YOU!!!!!! NEVER!!!!

You do know that socialism and fascism are on completely opposite ends of the political spectrum, right?

And for all you Republicans who are afraid of "socialism" just remember the socialized police force is what keeps poor liberal scum like me from robbing you of all your nice things. Remember, the poor outnumber the rich.
To continue the analogy, would you want to play somewhere with no casino security, where a bunch of red chippers who just lost their money could gang up and forcibly take your stack of green or black?

So before you wingnuts complain about being taxed of some of your income to help society, remember that what is good for society is typically good for the more affluent within that society as well. You get a fire department to protect your bigger houses. Maintained roads on which to drive your vehicles.

Taxation for the benefit of the society that made your wealth possible is a small price to pay for affluence. If you don't like that, well, nobody is forcing you to be well off.

You're describing anarchism, not conservatism. Conservatives recognize the need for government, only they keep it as small as possible so as to prevent it from doing any harm. Many Republicans are conservatives, but unfortunately, far from all Republicans are conservatives. A police force is a necessary evil, just like a military is. But a police state is not. Conservatives stand for law and order, but not dictatorship. That's why they embrace small government. Please get your facts straight.

Last edited by aslan; February 5th, 2010 at 09:01 AM.

Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” Bishop Fulton J. Sheen